Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Cryptography Security

Experimentally attacking quantum money schemes based on quantum retrieval games

arXiv
Authors: Kateřina Jiráková, Karol Bartkiewicz, Antonín Černoch, Karel Lemr

Year

2018

Paper ID

23095

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

139

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The concept of quantum money (QM) was proposed by Wiesner in the 1970s. Its main advantage is that every attempt to copy QM unavoidably leads to imperfect counterfeits. In the Wiesner's protocol, quantum banknotes need to be delivered to the issuing bank for verification. Thus, QM requires quantum communication which range is limited by noise and losses. Recently, Bozzio et al. (2018) have demonstrated experimentally how to replace challenging quantum verification with a classical channel and a quantum retrieval game (QRG). This brings QM significantly closer to practical realisation, but still thorough analysis of the revised scheme QM is required before it can be considered secure. We address this problem by presenting a proof-of-concept attack on QRG-based QM schemes, where we show that even imperfect quantum cloning can, under some circumstances, provide enough information to break a QRG-based QM scheme.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Cryptography & Security research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2018 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The concept of quantum money (QM) was proposed by Wiesner in the 1970s.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #23095

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.